Hi Dan - since organised religion is really about control of the minds of others and eliciting their submission to the mindset of the priests you should not be so surprised at the collusion and coincidence of interests between the law&order folks and the 'God's will' types - keep up the good work
Arthur
CarlM
· 8 months ago
I'm not sure if you looked at the full website, Daniel. Like you, I was disturbed by the front page and its imagery (in precisely the same way, by the way, as I would be disturbed by a similar image used on a military site). So, I looked at the site to see how twisted they were. And, I was surprised to see that they were simply a religious organization that ministers (primarily) to those involved in the armed forces in some way. Nowhere could I find anything that spoke of ANYTHING even remotely like: "sometimes he motivates people to dawn camouflage and kill people at range with assault rifles."
Perhaps you are more anti-military than I am (though I must admit that this would surprise me a bit), but your gripe here SEEMS to be with the military and its killing. The web site is marketing to military personnel. Who am I to judge what sort of imagery or word choice is best suited to attract the attention of that audience? "Equipping" meant something to me when I read it on your image: I envisioned the supplying of armament. But, this is NOT what this group equips the soldiers with. They equip them with religion .. perhaps with a moral center.
Before you jump on me, you know that I do NOT believe that religion is a necessary component to morality. You should be willing to admit however that there are people for whom religion gives a focus and motivation to keep to that moral center even in times of distress.
Anyway, after reading through the pages on the website, I don't see the disaster that your comments led me to expect. Is the image that you supplied disturbing? Yes. Is the name "Force Ministries" disturbing? Yes .. until I realized that it seems to mean little more than "a ministry for the armed forces." Is the use of the term "Equip" misleading? Well, I misunderstood what it meant, but it's a perfectly good use of the word.
When I saw this, I anticipated that it was going to be on the order of "Jesus Camp" (which is frightening). This isn't.
Jon
· 8 months ago
I agree with Daniel on this interpretation. The web copy may be more tame, but that banner and that bible verse clearly indicate that they believe they are doing god's will by blindly following their government and harassing and killing people in remote parts of the world. It is a continuation of Manifest Destiny. They still believe that the USG is the house on a hill giving light to the entire world. This isn't new or unusual but I find it repulsive and shocking nonetheless. And to think I felt the same way a few short years ago.
CarlM
· 8 months ago
Your interpretation may be right, but I have to disagree with your use of the word "clearly" : "... that banner and that bible verse clearly indicate that they believe they are doing god's will by blindly following their government and harassing and killing people in remote parts of the world." While they MAY believe this, there's no evidence (that I can find) elsewhere on their web pages that indicates that anything even remotely like this is their agenda or belief. Given that there are other plausible interpretations of their choice of image and quote (for example, they simply want to attract the attention of their target audience), I have to object to the word "clearly."
I have no problem with labeling hatemongers as hatemongers or extremists as extremists, but I take issue with people using their own preconceived notions to condemn others. Follow the evidence, don't invent it.
Daniel Miessler
· 8 months ago
I think I, and perhaps others, are reading a bit into what's being said on the site--based on our experience, on the Bible verse, and on the image they chose to market themselves.
Basically, this screams of a "soldiers for God" slant, and this is the type of rhetoric that's likely to be employed behind closed doors, despite what they may be putting forth in the touchy-feely part of their site.
I (we) could be wrong about this, but I know from personal experience that many of these types exist in the Military, and this site is showing all of the signs of being a typical instance of the behavior.
Adam Young
· 8 months ago
Heh. You should see the links that Google put on reader below your Article: Ministries and Faith. Loks like they aprsed the syntax without getting the semanitcs...
All Comments
Arthur
Perhaps you are more anti-military than I am (though I must admit that this would surprise me a bit), but your gripe here SEEMS to be with the military and its killing. The web site is marketing to military personnel. Who am I to judge what sort of imagery or word choice is best suited to attract the attention of that audience? "Equipping" meant something to me when I read it on your image: I envisioned the supplying of armament. But, this is NOT what this group equips the soldiers with. They equip them with religion .. perhaps with a moral center.
Before you jump on me, you know that I do NOT believe that religion is a necessary component to morality. You should be willing to admit however that there are people for whom religion gives a focus and motivation to keep to that moral center even in times of distress.
Anyway, after reading through the pages on the website, I don't see the disaster that your comments led me to expect. Is the image that you supplied disturbing? Yes. Is the name "Force Ministries" disturbing? Yes .. until I realized that it seems to mean little more than "a ministry for the armed forces." Is the use of the term "Equip" misleading? Well, I misunderstood what it meant, but it's a perfectly good use of the word.
When I saw this, I anticipated that it was going to be on the order of "Jesus Camp" (which is frightening). This isn't.
I have no problem with labeling hatemongers as hatemongers or extremists as extremists, but I take issue with people using their own preconceived notions to condemn others. Follow the evidence, don't invent it.
Basically, this screams of a "soldiers for God" slant, and this is the type of rhetoric that's likely to be employed behind closed doors, despite what they may be putting forth in the touchy-feely part of their site.
I (we) could be wrong about this, but I know from personal experience that many of these types exist in the Military, and this site is showing all of the signs of being a typical instance of the behavior.